Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
PRESBYOPIA TREATMENTS
[001]
BACKGROUND
10021 Presbyopia and other visual disorders have long been treated
primarily with optical
lenses and other such mechanical devices. As discussed in further detail
herein, it would be
advantageous to provide an alternative treatment that would avoid the use of
such devices and
the various disadvantages that these entail.
[003] Cholinergic agonists, such as pilocarpine, have been used to lower
intraocular pressure
("IOP") so as to treat primary open angle glaucoma. Such cholinergic agonists
were a mainstay
for treatments that sought to lower IOP until the introduction of timolol in
1978. In the
subsequent decades, and with the introduction of topical carbonic anhydrase
inhibitors, alpha
agonists, and prostaglandin agonists, pilocarpine became prescribed less often
since the newer
drugs had a much lower incidence of side effects such as reduced visual acuity
and ocular
discomfort (Allingham et al., Shields' Textbook of Glaucoma, 5th edition,
Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins (Philadelphia), 2005, pp. 501-503).
BRIEF SUMMARY
[004] Described herein are compositions and methods for improving vision
using pilocarpine.
[005] In some embodiments, there is provided a method of treating an ocular
condition in a
patient comprising administering to the patient an ophthalmic composition
comprising
pilocarpine hydrochloride.
[006] In one preferred embodiment, there is provided a method of treating
an ocular condition
in a patient in need thereof, comprising administering to the patient a
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition comprising pilocarpine hydrochloride at a
concentration
1
Oat
from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v, wherein the formulation is administered topically to at
least one eye of the
patient, and wherein the ocular condition is selected from the group
consisting of presbyopia,
hyperopia, mydriasis, anisocoria, accommodative esotropia, myopia, and
astigmatism.
[007] In another preferred embodiment, there is provided a method of
improving at least one
vision parameter in a patient in need thereof, comprising administering to the
patient a
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition comprising pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a
concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v, wherein the formulation is administered
topically to at least
one eye of the patient, and wherein the at least one vision parameter is
selected from the group
consisting of near vision acuity, intermediate vision acuity, distance vision
acuity, night vision,
day vision, glare, and light scattering.
[008] In a further preferred embodiment, there is provided a method for
improvement of near
vision in a patient with presbyopia in need thereof, comprising administering
to an eye of the
patient a pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition comprising
pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v.
[009] In some embodiments, the ocular condition is presbyopia. In some
embodiments, the
ocular condition is hyperopia. In some embodiments, the ocular condition is
mydriasis. In some
embodiments, the vision parameter is near vision acuity. In some embodiments,
the vision
parameter is intermediate vision acuity. In some embodiments, the vision
parameter is distance
vision acuity. In some embodiments, the vision parameter is night vision.
Additional
embodiments provide for the method resulting in an at least 3-line improvement
from baseline
under the condition of mesopic, high contrast UNVA. In some embodiments, the
method results
in an at least 2-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
mesopic, high contrast
UNVA. In some embodiments, the method results in an increase in the average
letter change
from baseline under the condition of mesopic, high contrast UNVA. In some
embodiments, the
method results in an at least 2-line improvement from baseline under the
condition of photopic,
high contrast UNVA. In some embodiments, the method results in an at least 2-
line
improvement from baseline under the condition of photopic, high contrast UDVA.
In some
embodiments, the method results in an at least 3-line improvement from
baseline under the
condition of mesopic, high contrast DCNVA. The method may result in an at
least 3-line
improvement from baseline under the condition of photopic, high contrast
DCNVA. In some
embodiments, the method results in an at least 3-line improvement from
baseline under the
2
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
condition of mesopic, high contrast DCIVA. The method may result in an at
least 3-line
improvement from baseline under the condition of photopic, high contrast
DCIVA. In some
embodiments, the method results in an improvement of at least one line in at
least one selected
from the group consisting of UNVA, UDVA, DCNVA, and DCIVA.
[0010] Further embodiments provide for the pharmaceutically acceptable
ophthalmic
composition to comprise pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration that is
greater than or
equal to 1% and less than 1.5% w/v. The pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic
composition
may comprise pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration of 1.25% w/v. Some
embodiments
provide for pilocarpine hydrochloride being the sole active ingredient in the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition. In some embodiments, the pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition does not comprise a polymer. Administration of the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition may in some embodiments result in a lower
incidence of at
least one of ocular blurring, ocular discomfort, eye pain, brow ache, blurry
vision, light
sensitivity, stinging, and itching, compared to administration of a second
ophthalmic
composition comprising pilocarpine and a polymer. In some embodiments, the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition further comprises boric acid, sodium citrate
dihydrate,
sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water. The
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition may be administered once daily. The
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition may be administered twice daily. The
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition may be administered to both eyes of the
patient The
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition may be administered to one
eye of the
patient. The pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition may be
administered to the
nondominant eye of the patient. The pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic
composition may
be administered to the dominant eye of the patient.
[0011] An additional preferred embodiment provides for a composition for the
treatment of an
ocular condition, wherein the composition is pharmaceutically acceptable and
comprises
pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v, and wherein
the ocular
condition is selected from the group consisting of presbyopia, hyperopia,
mydriasis, anisocoria,
accommodative esotropia, myopia, and astigmatism.
[0012] In some embodiments, the composition comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine
hydrochloride, and the ocular condition is presbyopia. In some embodiments,
the composition
3
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid, sodium citrate
dihydrate, sodium
chloride, hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water. In further
embodiments, the
composition is applied once daily. The composition may be applied twice daily.
The
composition may be administered to both eyes of a patient. The composition may
be
administered to a nondominant eye of a patient. The composition may be
administered to a
dominant eye of a patient. In some embodiments, pilocarpine hydrochloride is
the sole active
ingredient. Some embodiments, may further comprise a preservative. The
preservative may be
benzalkonium chloride. In certain embodiments, the composition comprises about
1.25% w/v
pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about 0.015% w/v sodium
citrate
dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium
chloride.
The composition may consist essentially of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine
hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v
boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate dihydrate, 0.08% w/v sodium chloride,
and 0.0075% w/v
benzalkonium chloride, with a pH of 5Ø The composition in some embodiments
reduces the
incidence of at least one adverse event selected from the group consisting of
ocular blurring,
ocular discomfort, eye pain, brow ache, blurry vision, light sensitivity,
ocular stinging, and
ocular itching, compared to administration of a second ophthalmic composition
comprising
pilocarpine and a polymer. The second composition may comprise 1% w/v
pilocarpine and the
polymer may be hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose.
[0013] In yet another preferred embodiment, there is provided a composition
for improving at
least one vision parameter, wherein the composition is pharmaceutically
acceptable and
comprises pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v,
and wherein the at
least one vision parameter is selected from the group consisting of near
vision acuity, distance
vision acuity, night vision, day vision, glare, and light scattering.
[0014] In some embodiments, the composition comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine
hydrochloride, and the vision parameter is near vision acuity. The composition
may comprise
1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, and the vision parameter may be distance
vision acuity.
The composition may comprise 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid,
sodium citrate
dihydrate, sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and
water. The
composition may be applied once daily. The composition may be applied twice
daily. In some
embodiments, the composition is administered to both eyes of a patient. The
composition may
be administered to a nondominant eye of a patient. In some embodiments, the
composition may
4
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
be administered to a dominant eye of a patient. In some embodiments,
pilocarpine hydrochloride
is the sole active ingredient. The composition may further comprise a
preservative. The
preservative may be benzalkonium chloride. In some embodiments, the
composition comprises
about 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about
0.015% w/v
sodium citrate dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075%
w/v
benzalkonium chloride. In some embodiments, the composition consists
essentially of 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate
dihydrate,
0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride, with a pH of
5Ø
[0015] In another preferred embodiment, there is provided a composition for
the improvement
of near vision in a patient with presbyopia, wherein the composition is
pharmaceutically
acceptable and comprises pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0
to 1.5% w/v.
[0016] In some embodiments, the composition comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine
hydrochloride, and the ocular condition is presbyopia. In some embodiments,
the composition
comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid, sodium citrate
dihydrate, sodium
chloride, hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water. The
composition may be
administered once daily. In some embodiments, pilocarpine hydrochloride is the
sole active
ingredient. The composition may further comprise a preservative. The
preservative may be
benzalkonium chloride. In another embodiment, the composition comprises about
1.25% w/v
pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about 0.015% w/v sodium
citrate
dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium
chloride. In
yet another embodiment, the composition consists essentially of 1.25% w/v
pilocarpine
hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate dihydrate, 0.08%
w/v sodium
chloride, and 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride, with a pH of 5Ø
[0017] In a preferred embodiment, there is provided a composition for the
improvement of
near vision in a patient with presbyopia, the composition comprising 1.25% w/v
pilocarpine
hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate dihydrate, 0.08%
w/v sodium
chloride, 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride, and water, with a pH of 3.0-5.5.
[0018] In some embodiments, the composition consists of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine
hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate dihydrate, 0.08%
w/v sodium
chloride, 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride, and water, with a pH of 5Ø In
some
embodiments, the composition is topically administered to the patient once
daily.
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[0019] In yet another preferred embodiment, a method for the improvement of
near vision in a
patient with presbyopia comprises administering to at least one eye of the
patient a
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition comprising pilocarpine as
the sole active
ingredient, wherein said composition does not contain any viscosity-enhancing
polymers.
[0020] In some embodiments, the composition comprises pilocarpine
hydrochloride. The
composition may comprise 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride. In some
embodiments, the
composition comprises pilocarpine nitrate. In further embodiments, the
composition comprises
1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride or a molar equivalent pilocarpine salt.
The composition
may be administered once daily. The composition may be administered twice
daily. In some
embodiments, the composition is administered to a nondominant eye of the
patient. In some
embodiments, the composition is administered to a dominant eye of the patient.
The composition
may also be administered to both eyes of the patient. In some embodiments, the
composition
does not contain hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose. In further embodiments,
administration of the
pharmaceutically acceptable composition reduces the incidence of one or more
adverse events
compared to the administration of a pilocarpine composition comprising one or
more viscosity-
enhancing polymers. The one or more adverse events may be selected from the
group consisting
of ocular blurring, ocular discomfort, eye pain, brow ache, blurry vision,
light sensitivity, ocular
stinging, and ocular itching.
[0021] In a further preferred embodiment, there is provided a method
comprising
administering to at least one eye of a patient with presbyopia a
pharmaceutically acceptable
ophthalmic composition comprising a first amount of pilocarpine hydrochloride
as the sole active
ingredient, wherein such administration is made without previously
administering a second
amount of pilocarpine hydrochloride and/or subsequently administering a third
amount of
pilocarpine hydrochloride; wherein the second amount is lower than the first
amount, and
wherein the third amount is higher than the first amount.
[0022] In some embodiments, the first amount of pilocarpine hydrochloride is
1.25% w/v. The
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition may be administered to both
eyes of the
patient. The pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition may be
administered once
daily, or twice daily.
6
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
[0023] FIG. 1 shows the average change from baseline of number of letters in
mesopic UNVA
(mITT, non-dominant eye, Clinical Study B using ANCOVA).
[0024] FIG. 2 shows the average change from baseline of UNVA at each timepoint
over a two-
day dosing period in the pilocarpine 1% Group, where one drop of pilocarpine
hydrochloride
was administered at Hour 0 on Day 1 and Day 2. (mITT, non-dominant eye,
Clinical Study B).
[0025] FIG. 3 illustrates a model of the most effective pilocarpine
concentration range for
improving near vision.
[0026] FIG. 4 shows the average letter change from baseline of UDVA over a 2-
day dosing
period in clinical study B.
[0027] FIG. 5 illustrates a computational model of the most effective
pilocarpine concentration
range for improving distance vision.
[0028] FIG. 6 shows the scheme of the study design in Clinical Study A.
[0029] FIG. 7 illustrates a comparison of the change in UNVA number of letters
read by
timepoint following 1% pilocarpine administration with different
concentrations of
oxymetazoline.
[0030] FIG. 8 shows a graph of 3-line improvement in mesopic UNVA (mITT
population).
[0031] FIG. 9 shows a graph of 2-line improvement in mesopic UNVA (mITT
population).
[0032] FIG. 10 shows the scheme of the study design in Clinical Study C.
[0033] FIGS. 11A and B illustrate the mean ocular blur and ocular discomfort,
respectively,
per timepoint for the two tested formulations at Assessment 1 in Clinical
Study C.
[0034] FIGS. 12A and B illustrate the mean ocular blur and ocular discomfort,
respectively,
across timepoints for the two tested formulations at Assessment 1 in Clinical
Study C.
[0035] FIGS. 13A and B illustrate the mean ocular blur and ocular discomfort,
respectively,
per timepoint for the two tested formulations at Assessment 2 in Clinical
Study C.
[0036] FIGS. 14A and B illustrate the mean ocular blur and ocular discomfort,
respectively,
across timepoints for the two tested formulations at Assessment 2 in Clinical
Study C.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
7
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
DEFINITIONS
[0037] Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used
herein have the same
meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which
the subject matter
pertains.
[0038] In describing and claiming the present subject matter, the following
terminology will be
used in accordance with the definitions set out below.
[0039] As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular
forms "a," "an" and
"the" include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
[0040] The term "therapeutically effective amount" refers to an amount that is
effective, when
administered to an individual to treat one or more ocular conditions and/or
improve at least one
vision parameter. The extent of the vision improvement and/or success in the
treatment of the
ocular condition when a therapeutically effective amount of a compound and/or
composition is
administered to an individual would be readily identifiable to a skilled
person as is described
herein.
[0041] The term "uncorrected near visual acuity" ("UNVA-) refers to a person's
ability,
without any vision aid (such as eyeglasses or contact lenses), to see the
details of objects within
arm's distance from the body (e.g., at 33-41 cm away from the eye). Similarly,
the term
"distance corrected near visual acuity" ("DCNVA") may be used to refer to a
person's ability to
see the details of objects within arm's distance from the body (e.g., at 33-41
cm away from the
eye), with the use of vision aids such as eyeglasses or contact lenses that
correct for distance
vision issues. The terms "near visual acuity", "near vision acuity", and "near
vision" may be
used interchangeably.
[0042] The term "uncorrected distance visual acuity" ("UDVA") refers to a
person's ability,
without any vision aid (such as eyeglasses or contact lenses), to see the
details of objects beyond
arm's distance from the body (e.g., greater than 4 meters away from the eye
The terms "distance
visual acuity", "distance vision acuity", and "distance vision" may be used
interchangeably.
[0043] The terms "intermediate vision", "intermediate vision acuity", and
"intermediate visual
acuity" may be used to refer to a person's ability to see the details of
objects at distances between
the near and far visual ranges. In other words, such a distance range would be
between a
distance approximately farther than arm's distance (about 33-41 cm away from
the eye) and less
than approximately 4 meters from the eye. In some embodiments, for example,
this may refer to
8
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
the distance from a person's eye to an object near a person's feet. The term
distance-corrected
intermediate visual acuity ("DCIVA") may be used to refer to a person's
ability to see the details
of objects at intermediate distances with the use of vision aids such as
eyeglasses or contact
lenses that correct for distance vision issues.
[0044] The term "2-line improvement from baseline" or "3-line improvement from
baseline"
or similar improvement from baseline refers to a person's ability to read 2 or
3 more lines of
letters on a standard chart (e.g., Snellen, ETDRS, Logarithmic Visual Acuity
Chart, etc.) after
treatment with pilocarpine when comparing to the number of lines readable
before treatment.
[0045] The term "the number of letters correctly read" refers to the number of
letters on a
standard chart (e.g., Snellen, ETDRS, Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart, etc.)
that can be
correctly read by a person. The term "increase from baseline in the number of
letters correctly"
refers to the increase from pre-treatment in the number of letters correctly
read at certain post
treatment time point.
[0046] The term "mITT" refers to the modified intent-to-treat population,
which is defined as
all randomized patients with a baseline and at least 1 post baseline
assessment of mesopic, high
contrast, UNVA, and with a baseline UNVA of no greater than 3 lines across the
5 dosing
periods.
[0047] The term "vision parameter" may refer to any characteristic in a
patient's vision that
may be measured and is susceptible to being improved by the compositions and
methods
described herein. Vision parameters that may be improved in the various
embodiments
described herein include but are not limited to near vision acuity,
intermediate visual acuity,
distance visual acuity, night vision, day vision, optical aberrations (e.g.,
glare, light scattering),
and uncorrected refractive errors. Additional examples of vision parameters
that may be
improved in the various embodiments described herein also include without
limitation night time
glare, post-LASIK "star burst" glare, visual "halos" seen around light
sources, and
accommodative insufficiency.
[0048] Vision or visual improvement, including but not limited to near,
intermediate, and/or
distance visual acuity, may for example be reflected in the increase of number
of letters correctly
read at any time point post dosing, the increase in the average letter change,
or 2-line or 3-line
improvement, all from baseline (i.e., from pre-treatment). Night vision
improvement may be
reflected in visual improvement for patients in dim or dark lighting (e.g.,
under mesopic or
9
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
scotopic conditions). Day vision improvement may be reflected in visual
improvement for
patients in bright lighting as found during daylight hours or in sunshine
(e.g., under photopic
conditions). Vision improvement using the embodiments described herein may
also be achieved
in combination with or when using other visual aids and devices (especially
those used for
treating presbyopia), including but not limited to reading glasses, lens
modifying medications,
and surgical presbyopic options including intraocular lenses (IOLs).
[0049] The term "ocular condition" may refer to any condition, disease, or
impairment which
affects or involves the eye or one of the parts or regions of the eye, and
includes optical issues
causing refractive errors in the eye. Ocular conditions include, but are not
limited to presbyopia,
hyperopia, mydriasis, anisocoria, and accommodative esotropia, myopia,
astigmatism, Adie's
tonic pupil, or other causes of parasympathetic denervation, accommodative
insufficiency, and
complications arising after refractive surgery, such as decentered ablations
following LASIK or
PRK, corneal scars, hazing, refractive errors, and so forth.
[0050] Pilocarpine is a cholinergic muscarinic agonist represented by the
following chemical
structure:
.11
N
Pilocarpine
[0051] Pilocarpine may present in different salt forms, but is typically used
with its
hydrochloride salt. Other possible salts include, but are not limited to,
nitrate, hydrate, and free
acids. Unless specified otherwise, references to "pilocarpine" herein will
mean "pilocarpine
hydrochloride". Additionally, references herein to compositions with
pilocarpine, unless
otherwise specified, should be interpreted as such an amount of a composition
with pilocarpine
hydrochloride in units of weight per volume. For example, 1.25% pilocarpine
would mean a
composition of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride.
[0052] In the embodiments described herein, pilocarpine hydrochloride may be
used in a
composition in ranges of 1% to 1.5% w/v, more preferably above 1% w/v and
below 1.5% w/v,
for example 1.16% w/v to 1.32% w/v, or 1.1875% w/v to 1.3125% w/v. Additional
ranges of
pilocarpine hydrochloride that may be used include 0.95% w/v to 1.2% w/v, 1.1%
w/v to 1.4%
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
w/v, and 1.2% w/v to 1.3% w/v. A preferred amount of pilocarpine hydrochloride
is 1.25% w/v.
Other amounts of pilocarpine hydrochloride that may be used include for
example and without
limitation, 0.5% w/v, 0.6% w/v, 0.7% w/v, 0.8% w/v, 0.9% w/v, 0.95% w/v, 0.99%
w/v, 1%
w/v, 1.01% wfv, 1.05% w/v, 1.08% w/v, 1.1% w/v, 1.15% w/v, 1.2% w/v, 1.21%
w/v, 1.22%
w/v, 1.23% w/v, 1.24% w/v, 1.26% w/v, 1.27% w/v, 1.28% w/v, 1.29% w/v, 1.3%
w/v, 1.31%
w/v, 1.32% wlv, 1.35% w/v, 1.4% w/v, 1.45% w/v, 1.49% w/v, and 1.5% w/v, and
ranges and
amounts between any of these selected amounts of pilocarpine hydrochloride. It
will also be
understood that in some embodiments involving non-hydrochloride salts of
pilocarpine,
corresponding molar equivalent amounts of these other salts can be used. For
example, a 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride composition (molecular weight of 244.72 g/mol)
would be
equivalent to a composition of 1.06% w/v pilocarpine when the weight of the
hydrochloride is
subtracted. A corresponding molar equivalent amount of the pilocarpine nitrate
salt (molecular
weight of 270.527 g/mol) would therefore have a concentration of 1.38% w/v.
Similar molar
conversion calculations may be made for other amounts and ranges disclosed
herein.
[0053] In the embodiments described herein, compositions may be administered
once daily,
twice daily, or more. Preferably, the compositions are administered once
daily. When
administered, the compositions preferably have a duration of action sufficient
for an entire day.
In some embodiments, the compositions may have a duration of effect of at
least two hours, at
least three hours, preferably at least four hours, more preferably at least
six hours, more
preferably at least eight hours, even more preferably at least 10 hours, as
well as all intervening
time points. Some embodiments may provide for a composition having a duration
of action
greater than 10 hours, for example 12 hours, or even 24 hours. The duration of
action refers to
the duration of time that the administered composition has an effect on at
least one vision
parameter or ocular condition (e.g., presbyopia).
[0054] In some embodiments, when pilocarpine is part of a composition, the
compound is the
sole active ingredient which has therapeutic activity for the treatment of an
ocular condition or
for improving a vision parameter. The term "active ingredient" as used herein
refers to a
component of a composition which is responsible for the therapeutic effect of
composition,
whereas the other components of the composition (e.g. excipients, carriers,
and diluents) are not
responsible for the therapeutic effect of composition, even if they have other
functions in the
composition which are necessary or desired as part of the formulation (such as
lubrication, pH
11
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
control, emulsification, stabilization, preservation, and other functions
other than the effect of
composition as described herein). In some embodiments, compositions described
herein in which
pilocarpine is the sole active ingredient which has therapeutic activity are
compositions in which
there are no other components which would be considered to have therapeutic
activity for the
treatment of ocular conditions or improvement of vision parameters.
[0055] The compositions described herein may comprise a suitable preservative.
Examples of
suitable preservatives include benzalkonium chloride ("BAK"), Polyquaternium-1
(Polyquadt),
chlorobutanol, stabilized chlorine dioxide, and others. Stabilized chlorine
dioxide, also known as
Purite , may be described as an aqueous solution of sodium chlorite (NaC102).
U.S. Patent
Number 5,424,078,
further discusses the
use of stabilized chlorine dioxide as a preservative for ophthalmic
formulations.
[0056] Topical cholinergic agonists act on the ciliary muscle, located in the
ciliary body of the
eye, and which is one of the richest areas of cholinergic receptors in the
central nervous system.
Pilocarpine also acts on the muscarinic cholinergic receptors found on the
iris sphincter muscle,
causing the muscle to contract, resulting in pupil constriction (i.e., miosis)
(Levin et al., Adler's
Physiology of the Eye, I Ith edition by Saunders Elsevier (Edinburgh), pp. 56,
57, and 509-510).
[0057] When topical pilocarpine is applied to the eye, the cholinergic
receptors are activated in
the ciliary muscle, thereby causing it to contract, which in turn opens the
trabecular meshwork
(Id, pp. 44, 45, and 289-291). This can facilitate the rate at which aqueous
humor leaves the eye
and the net result is a reduction of the intraocular pressure ("I013-) in
patients with primary open
angle glaucoma. Pilocarpine, with stimulation of the ciliary muscle, can cause
a forward
movement of the ciliary body with ciliary muscle contraction, relaxation of
the zonules causing
the central surfaces of the crystalline lens to steepen, and the central
thickness of the lens to
increase (anterior-posterior diameter) (Id, pp. 44-55). The net result is an
increase in the diopter
power of the lens which can lead to a number of patient complaints, including
reduced visual
acuity at near and far distances and ocular discomfort with higher
concentrations of pilocarpine
instilled in the eye. These adverse effects on the vision have been
demonstrated in a number of
clinical trials (Brown et al., Arch Ophthalmol. 94, pp. 1716-1719, 1976, and
Diestelhorst M,
"The additive intraocular pressure-lowering effect of latanoprost 0.005% daily
once and
pilocarpine 2% t.i.d. in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular
hypertension. a 6-month,
12
Da
randomized, multicenter study. German Latanoprost Study Group," Graefes Arch
Cl/n. Exp.
Ophthalmol., 238(5), pp. 433-439). These adverse effects are also listed in
the Isoptocarpine
product label (See IsoptoCarpinee label approved on June 22, 2010, page 6).
[0058] At the peak of topical cholinergic agonist use in clinical practice in
the 1970s, different
topical ophthalmic medications were manufactured in a wide range of
concentrations to be able
to meet individual patient needs for lowering IOP to treat glaucoma.
Pilocarpine (IsoptoCarpine,
Alcon) had 0.25%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 4.0%, 5.0%, 6.0%, 8.0%, and 10.0%
(w/v)
concentrations available at frequent QID (4 times daily) dosing to have a
sustained effect since
the drug has a short half-life in the aqueous humor (Id). Clinical trials have
also demonstrated
that QID dosing with pilocarpine is more effective than BID (twice daily)
dosing in lowering
IOP (Quigley etal., Ann. Ophthalmol. 9, pp. 427-430, 1977 and Harbin etal.,
Ann. Opthalomol.,
10, pp. 59-61, 1978). Clinical trials have also shown that higher
concentrations, such as
pilocarpine 4%, are more effective in lowering IOP than lower concentrations
(e.g., <4%) (Boger
et al., Am. J. Ophthalmol. 86, pp. 8-18, 1978). One study compared three
concentrations of
pilocarpine used for 1-week treatment of patients with glaucoma, and results
showed a mean
percent fall in TOP from baseline of 17.5%, 26.8%, and 29.1% with the 1%, 4%,
and 8% dose
strengths, respectively (Harris et al., Am. J. Ophthalmol., 72, pp. 923-925,
1971).
[0059] Consequently, glaucoma management with pilocarpine typically begins
with lower
concentrations, with the dose strengths being individually titrated upwards so
as to permit
patients to achieve target TOP sufficient to prevent further visual field
deterioration (Ritch et al.,
The Glaucomas, Mushy (Sr. Louis), p. 516, 1989 and Kini etal., Arch
Ophthalmol., 89, pp. 190-
192, 1973). This is also true for cholinergic glaucoma medications other than
pilocarpine,
where the eye care provider initiates topical drug therapy with a low
concentration and increases
the dose strengths as needed to achieve a patient's target IOP (Phillips
etal., Trans Ophthalmol.
Soc. U.K., 86, pp. 233-245, 1966). Thus, it is commonly understood that
pilocarpine has an
upwardly sloping dose response curve.
[0060] However, escalating doses of pilocarpine in order to retain adequate
TOP control often
increases dose-dependent adverse events. For example, blurry vision at near
and far distances is
a common side effect of commercial pilocarpine formulations. The prescribing
information for
Isoptocarpine notes that a common adverse reaction is blurred vision;
additional potential visual
disturbances noted in the label include accommodative change and "visual
impairment (dim,
13
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
dark, or 'jumping' vision)". The prescribing information warns patients to
exercise caution in
night driving or other situations with poor illumination, and, recognizing the
risk of blurry
vision, warn against driving or using machinery if the patient's vision is not
clear.
[0061] In patients approximately 40 years old or greater, there is a gradual
loss in the ability to
focus (particularly at close distance) primarily due to stiffening of the lens
in the eye, a refractive
condition known as presbyopia (Levin etal., Adler's Physiology of the Eye E-
Book, I 1th edition
by Saunders Elsevier (Edinburgh), pp. 59-61). It has been suggested that,
following topical
application of pilocarpine, the increase in accommodation from the ciliary
muscle contraction
and/or the miosis can create a "pin-hole effect" that may potentially improve
the near and
intermediate vision in some patients by increasing the depth of field,
although the most effective
dosing frequency and dose concentrations have not been defined. Some teachings
have also
advocated combining pilocarpine with other active ingredients, such as alpha-2
adrenergic
receptor agonists. However, such combinations may implicate additional side
effects on top of
those related to pilocarpine. For example, common oxymetazoline side effects
include ocular
burning and stinging, blurry vision, watery eyes, headache, dizziness, and
nervousness.
[0062] Commercial preparations of pilocarpine for glaucoma are typically
formulated with
TM
viscosity enhancers which include hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, povidone, and
carbopol 940
(Ritch et al., The Glaucomas, Mosby ('Si. Louis), p. 517, 1989). Viscosity
enhancing polymers
are commonly used in topical ophthalmic preparations to reduce the clearance
of pilocarpine
through lacrimal drainage so as to increase the residency time of the drug on
the cornea, thereby
increasing bioavailability and TOP effect (Reddy, Ocular Therapeutics and Drug
Delivery: A
Multi-Disciphnaiy Approach, Technomic Publishing AG (Lancaster), pp. 387-389,
1996).
Polymers may also be used as demulcents to increase the comfort of ophthalmic
preparations
once placed upon the eye, and are typically described as having a lubricant
and/or soothing effect
(Abelson et. al., Demystiffing Demulcents, Review of Ophthalmology, 2006).
[0063] Unfortunately, the viscosity due to added polymers in such
ophthalmic formulations
can result in adverse effects such as vision blur that limit their use (Hall
etal., Optom. Vis. Sc.,
88, pp.872-880, 2011). Accordingly, adding (or increasing) polymer content and
viscosity of an
ophthalmic formulations may result in vision blur (Id).
14
[0064] The current use of pilocarpine ophthalmic solution in the ophthalmic
context is limited
by several commonly-experienced adverse events, including temporal and
periorbital headache
(i.e., brow ache), which may be due at least in part to rapid ciliary muscle
contraction. Dosing
frequencies and concentrations of pilocarpine, preferably as a monotherapy,
that can effectively
treat presbyopia without causing intolerable side effects such as severe
headache and visual
disturbances are therefore desired. Such embodiments have been discovered and
are described in
greater detail below.
SUMMARY OF CLINICAL STUDIES
Clinical Study A
[0065] The safety and efficacy of pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% w/v ophthalmic
solution alone
was evaluated in one arm of a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-
controlled study
in patients with presbyopia in a clinical study. The clinical study is
referred to herein as Clinical
Study A and is summarized in Example 1, and involved once or twice daily
pilocarpine
administration, each over a 3-day study period.
[0066] Unexpectedly, pilocarpine provided a greater improvement on reading
ability with QD
(once daily) dosing compared with BID (twice daily) dosing. The percentage of
patients
achieving a clinically relevant 2-line (10 letter) improvement from baseline
in Uncorrected Near
Visual Acuity (UNVA) at the majority of time points measured over an 8-hour
period each day
over the study period was 70.6% in the QD dosing group compared with 56.3% in
the BID
dosing group.
Clinical Study B
[0067] Following the results of Clinical Study A, an additional clinical
study, referred to as
Clinical Study B and described in Example 2, was performed to examine the
effects of multiple
dose concentrations of pilocarpine in patients with presbyopia using the QD
dosing frequency
that appeared to be better than BID from the aforementioned Clinical Study A.
[0068] As detailed in Example 2, a multicenter, double-masked, randomized,
vehicle-
controlled clinical study in 160 patients with presbyopia was performed. This
clinical study
included arms receiving pilocarpine hydrochloride 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% w/v with
QD dosing
over a 2-day study period. Additional arms also tested the effect of combining
pilocarpine with
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
varying concentrations of oxymetazoline. Uncorrected near vision was measured
each day at 1,
3, 6, 8, and 10-hours post pilocarpine administration.
[0069] Unexpectedly, the average letter change from baseline over the 2-day
study period was
numerically higher in the pilocarpine 1% group vs the 1.5% group (FIG. 1). The
percentage of
patients achieving a clinically relevant 2-line (10 letter) improvement of
uncorrected near visual
acuity at the majority of time points measured over a 10-hour period each day
over the study
period was 23.8% in the 1% dosing group vs. 22.2% in the 1.5% QD dosing group.
[0070] In addition, there was an unexpected sustained plateau effect between 6
and 10 hours
with pilocarpine 1% on improved reading ability in terms of average letter
change from baseline
(FIG. 2). This "plateau effect" (see arrows in Figure) was not predicted from
previous non-
clinical ocular pharmacokinetics studies, where pilocarpine levels in the
ciliary muscle tissues
rapidly diminish over time and a sustained improvement at the later time
points would therefore
not be expected. The previous study (Clinical Study A) also confirmed a
sustained vision
improvement at the later hours of measurement after day 1.
[0071] In the instant clinical studies, such as Clinical Study B (and as
described in greater
detail below), the distance vision was measured at 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10-hours
post pilocarpine
administration with QD dose strength of 0.0% (control), 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%
over 2 days. The
purpose of measuring distance vision is that pilocarpine frequently leads to a
reduction of visual
acuity at far distances, with patients complaining of blurry vision (Brown et
al., Arch
Ophthalmol., 94, pp. 1716-1719). Unexpectedly, an improvement in distance
visual acuity from
baseline over the control arm was observed, most consistent with a pilocarpine
concentration of
1%. (FIG. 4). At the 11 time points measured after QD dosing over the 2-day
study, the
pilocarpine 1% dose had numerically higher distance vision improvement at 9-
time points vs
control, as reflected, for example, in the average letter change from
baseline. In addition, the
distance vision improvement with pilocarpine 1% was numerically higher than
1.5% at all 11
time points, as reflected, for example, in the average letter change from
baseline. Patients
receiving pilocarpine 1.5% experienced a reduction in the mean distance visual
acuity from
baseline at 2 of these time points. In addition to the improved efficacy,
ocular adverse effects
were lower with the pilocarpine 1% dose strength versus the 1.5% dose
strength.
[0072] Surprisingly, the clinical studies also showed that the tested
pilocarpine compositions,
when administered in combination with oxymetazoline hydrochloride at 0%,
0.0125%, 0.05%,
16
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
and 0.125% w/v, did not show any significant additional effect or reduction of
adverse events. It
had been expected that the addition of oxymetazoline to pilocarpine would
extend the duration of
effect or increase the magnitude of effect on vision. As shown in FIG. 7,
there was no
meaningful difference between groups where pilocarpine was tested alone, and
those where
pilocarpine was administered together with oxymetazoline. Similarly,
oxymetazoline did not
reduce the incidence of adverse events. As a result, the findings from the
clinical study
surprisingly indicated that pilocarpine would perform well as a sole active
ingredient, opposing
the expectation that it would perform better in combination with another
active such as
oxymetazoline.
[0073] The clinical studies suggest that the dosing frequency and
concentrations of pilocarpine
to achieve optimal reading efficacy is contrary to the conventional use of
pilocarpine for
lowering IOP. When pilocarpine is used for lowering IOP, a linear relationship
exists and
increasing pilocarpine concentrations and dosing frequency leads to greater
TOP reduction. Here,
however, clinical studies indicate that QD pilocarpine dosing with
concentrations >1% and
<1.5% are most effective for improving reading abilities in patients with
presbyopia. The
mechanism for this is, however, not known.
[0074] To identify the optimal dose strength of pilocarpine to treat ocular
conditions and/or
improve vision parameters while minimizing adverse events, computational
modeling was
performed. Computational modeling is a validated approach using existing
clinical data that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration advocates to identify best doses and
clinical trial scenarios
to accelerate drug development and has been used successfully in real practice
(see, e.g.,
Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products, FDA,
2004, Page 24).
[0075] A polynomial regression model based on data from clinical studies was
developed with
the covariates that included linear, quadratic and cubic pilocarpine doses,
baseline mesopic
UNVA severity and iris color. Results (FIG. 3) showed that the most effective
pilocarpine dose
strength that can achieve the low bound of 5.5 mesopic near vision letter
improvement is
between 1.16% and 1.32% (Mid-Point= 1.25%)
[0076] Since the relationship of distance visual improvement and pilocarpine
dose strength
was non-linear, computational modeling was performed to identify the most
effective dose
strength for distance vision improvement using the similar polynomial
regression model
described above. Results (FIG. 5) showed that the most effective pilocarpine
dose strength that
17
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
can achieve the low bound of 2.0 mesopic distance vision improvement is
between 0.95% and
1.2% (Mid-Point= 1.08%).
[0077] Based at least in part upon these findings, further testing was
conducted using a 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride formulation. As described, for example, in
Clinical Studies C and
D (Examples 6 and 7 below), such a formulation is believed to provide maximal
near vision
improvements, while maintaining distance visual acuity, and further while
minimizing ocular
adverse events. Of course, other ranges and amounts of pilocarpine may be
used, as noted
previously.
[0078] Contrary to the prevailing use of pilocarpine hydrochloride, the
pilocarpine
formulations used in the clinical studies described herein comprised no
polymers, thereby
limiting the potential for vision blur. Since viscosity is a surrogate for the
blur potential of an
ophthalmic formulation, the viscosity of an embodiment of a polymer-free
pilocarpine
formulation was compared to viscosity of commercially available polymer-
containing
pilocarpine formulation (Isoptocarpine, which contains hydroxy propyl methyl
cellulose), as
described in Example 4. Results showed that with equal drug concentrations of
1% pilocarpine,
commercial polymer-containing formulations were approximately 20-fold more
viscous than the
polymer-free formulations described herein. These polymer-free formulations
were close to the
viscosity of water (i.e., 1 centipoise), and are therefore not likely to
result in vision blur. By
contrast, the more viscous commercial formulations are likely to cause
significant vision blur
when dosed on a patient's eye, given its high viscosity.
[0079] Traditional pilocarpine usage in glaucoma requires an increase in dose
strength (with
formulations of up to 10% pilocarpine) and an increase in dosing frequency (up
to four times
daily) in order to provide adequate IOP reduction and control. Moreover,
pilocarpine has been
found to adversely affect vision (at both near and far distances), and is also
tied to more serious
adverse events (such as headache) when used at the higher drug concentrations
and dosing
frequencies typically used for treating glaucoma.
[0080] Surprisingly, however, the inventors have discovered that a pilocarpine
concentration
>1% and <1.5% (preferably about 1.25%) improves vision at both near and far
distances while
causing minimal adverse events (e.g., brow ache, headache). While the removal
of polymers
was expected to have reduced the residence time of pilocarpine on the ocular
surface and its
18
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
subsequent effect, the polymer-free compositions described herein unexpectedly
did not reduce
pilocarpine's duration of effect¨to the contrary, once-daily dosing was
discovered to better
maintain the visual improvement over a 10-hour period than more frequent
dosing (e.g., twice-
daily administration). The removal of polymers also reduced the potential for
vision blurring and
other such issues. Also unexpectedly, and contrary to the prevailing use of
pilocarpine
hydrochloride, it was discovered that treatment of presbyopia with pilocarpine
did not require an
increasing dose to maintain a constant effect on vision improvement, and a
steady-state dose of
pilocarpine maintains a consistent effect on vision. At the same time, adverse
events were
surprisingly minimal when pilocarpine was administered as the sole active
agent, and the
addition of other active ingredients such as oxymetazoline did not demonstrate
any meaningful
improvement in the duration/magnitude of effect or the incidence of adverse
events.
[0081] It is not known why, in comparison to the glaucoma treatment mechanism
of action,
these particular lower dose strengths and reduced dosing frequencies provide
greater visual
improvement. This discovery is contrary to the conventional use of pilocarpine
for lowering
IOP, which teaches that more frequent daily dosing (up to 4 times daily) and
higher dose
strengths (up to 10%) are most effective. Despite not having a polymer to
increase drug
residency in the tear film and improve bioavailability, once daily
administration of the instant
pilocarpine compositions described herein provided up to 10 hours or more of
vision
improvement.
[0082] The following examples are illustrative in nature and are in no way
intended to be
limiting.
EXAMPLE 1
CLINICAL STUDY A AND ANALYSIS
[0083] Clinical Study A is a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-
controlled study
which determined the effect of once- or twice-daily dosing of pilocarpine.
Seventeen patients
were treated with pilocarpine hydrochloride 1.0% w/v followed by vehicle in
the non-dominant
eye, and vehicle alone in the dominant eye. The respective formulations used
are set forth in
Table 4 below. One patient discontinued the study, due to a nonocular adverse
event.
[0084] Study medication was administered once daily (QD) in each eye during
office visits 1
through 3 at hour 0 (8 AM + 1 hour). Following a 5 2 day washout period, study
medication
was administered twice daily (BID) in each eye during office visits 5 through
7 at hour 0 (8 AM
19
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
+ 1 hour) and hour 5 (5 hours 15 minutes after hour 0 dose administration).
Patients returned
on visit 8 for safety testing and exit from the study. The study design was
illustrated in FIG. 6.
[0085] The primary efficacy variable was UNVA response at visit 3. A UNVA
responder was
defined as a patient with at least a 2-line improvement in mesopic, high
contrast UNVA in the
non-dominant eye from baseline (hour 0 of visit 1) at a majority (at least 3)
of time points post
dose.
[0086] During the QD dosing period, the percentage of patients achieving the
primary
endpoint, at least a 2-line improvement from baseline in mesopic, high
contrast UNVA (hour 0
of visit 1) in the non-dominant eye at a majority (at least 3) of time points
post dose was 70.6%.
These patients also showed statistically significant superiority (p = 0.020 to
0.058) for the
nondominant eye (active) over the dominant eye (vehicle) in the percent of
patients achieving a
2-line improvement in mesopic, high contrast UNVA from baseline at a majority
of timepoints
postdose from visits 2 to 7.
[0087] During the BID dosing period, the percentage of patients achieving the
primary
endpoint, at least a 2-line improvement from baseline in mesopic, high
contrast UNVA (hour 0
of visit 5) in the non-dominant eye at a majority (at least 3) of time points
post dose was 56.3%
(p=0.035 to 0.058).
[0088] It was unexpected that the pilocarpine provided more improvement on
reading ability
with QD (once daily) dosing compared with BID (twice daily) dosing.
EXAMPLE 2
CLINICAL STUDY B AND ANALYSIS
[0089] A multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, randomized sequence, dose
response,
vehicle-controlled study in patients with presbyopia was conducted. Four
treatment groups were
defined based on the concentration of pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic
solution to which
patients were randomly assigned (0%, 0.5%, 1%, or 1.5% w/v). Each dosing
period lasted for
two days. Although not the primary focus of this present discussion, each of
the tested
pilocarpine concentrations was paired with four different concentrations of
oxymetazoline
hydrochloride ophthalmic solution (0%, 0.0125%, 0.05%, or 0.125% w/v)
administered as an
unfixed combination, as well as a group which received a fixed combination of
pilocarpine
hydrochloride 1% w/v in combination with oxymetazoline hydrochloride 0.125%
wiv.
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[0090] Pilocarpine hydrochloride 0.5, 1, and 1.5% w/v ophthalmic solutions
also contained
benzalkonium chloride, boric acid, sodium citrate dihydrate, sodium chloride,
hydrochloric
acid/sodium hydroxide, and purified water, whereas pilocarpine hydrochloride
0% contained no
pilocarpine or any salt thereof but only the excipients/carriers (i.e.,
benzalkonium chloride, boric
acid, sodium citrate dihydrate, sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid/sodium
hydroxide, and
purified water).
[0091] Oxymetazoline hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.0125, 0.05, or 0.125%
w/v
contained oxymetazoline hydrochloride, benzalkonium chloride, boric acid,
sodium citrate
dihydrate, sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid/sodium hydroxide, and purified
water, whereas
oxymetazoline hydrochloride 0% contained no oxymetazoline or any salt thereof
but only the
excipients/carriers (i.e., benzalkonium chloride, boric acid, sodium citrate
dihydrate, sodium
chloride, hydrochloric acid/sodium hydroxide, and purified water).
Patient Eligibility
[0092] Enrollment of approximately 160 patients with presbyopia was planned
(40 per
pilocarpine group). A total of 157 patients were enrolled, treated, and
included in the mITT
population (40, 37, 42, and 38 in the pilocarpine hydrochloride 0%, 0.5%, 1%,
and 1.5% groups,
respectively). 161 patients were included in the safety populations (41, 39,
42, and 39 in the
pilocarpine hydrochloride 0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% groups, respectively). All
patients in the
mITT and safety populations completed the study except for 2, 2, 1, and 3
patients in the
pilocarpine 0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% groups, respectively, who discontinued
early due to
withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up.
[0093] Following a screening visit (Days -18 to -1) patients were randomized
at a baseline visit
(Visit 1) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio (stratified by the UNVA at baseline of < 20/80
and > 20/80) to 1 of the
4 pilocarpine treatment groups. For each 2-day dosing period, active study
treatments were
administered once daily in the nondominant eye, and vehicle control treatments
were
administered once daily in the dominant eye.
Efficacy and Safety Measurements
[0094] Efficacy: The primary efficacy measure was mesopic (defined by lighting
3.2 to 3.5
candelas [cd]/m2 [10 to 11 lux] measured at the target), high contrast UNVA in
the nondominant
eye. The primary efficacy variable was the average letter change from baseline
under the
21
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
condition of mesopic, high contrast UNVA in the non-dominant eye. Baseline was
the Day 1
Hour 0 measure for each dosing period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the
average letter
change from baseline under the condition of mesopic, high contrast UNVA in the
nondominant
eye over 2-day periods between Hour 1 and Hour 10.
[0095] Other efficacy measures were mesopic distance (4 meters) and near (40
mm) pupil
diameter, mesopic distance and near target refraction (diopters [D], as
measured by Grand Seiko
autorefractor), and mesopic, high contrast UDVA.
[0096] Safety: Safety measures were adverse events (AEs), photopic high
contrast UDVA,
vital signs (blood pressure and heart rate), macroscopic hyperemia assessment,
study drug
tolerability and drop comfort assessments, temporal and supraorbital headache
assessment,
intraocular pressure (lOP), slit lamp biomicroscopy, dilated funduscopic
examinations, and
pregnancy tests for females of childbearing potential. In addition, the
following safety measures
were collected only at screening for determination of patient eligibility:
Schirmer's tear test (with
anesthesia), pupillary response assessment, photopic pupil measurement (both
eyes; distance;
measured with Grand Seiko), sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford
scale), cycloplegic
refraction (photopic distance), and gonioscopy angle assessment.
Statistical Methods
[0097] Analysis Populations: The modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population
was defined as
all randomized patients with a baseline and at least 1 post baseline
assessment of mesopic, high
contrast, UNVA, and with a baseline UNVA that did not change by more than
three lines over
five dosing periods. The efficacy variables were analyzed using the mITT
population on an as-
randomized basis.
[0098] The safety population was defined as all patients who received at least
one dose of
study treatment. All safety measures were analyzed using the safety population
on an as-treated
basis.
[0099] Disposition and Demographics: Patient disposition was summarized for
all screened
patients and overall and by treatment group for the mITT population. Important
protocol
deviations were summarized for the mITT population. Demographic variables were
summarized
for all screened patients and overall and by treatment group for the mITT, PP
and safety
populations. Medical history and prior and concomitant medications were
summarized overall
and by treatment group for the safety population. The National Eye Institute
Visual Function
22
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
Questionnaire 25 (NET VFQ-25), administered at screening, was summarized for
the safety
population.
[00100] A total of 163 patients were enrolled at 15 investigational sites and
157 patients were
included in the mITT population (40, 37, 42, and 38 in the pilocarpine
hydrochloride 0%, 0.5%,
1%, and 1.5% groups, respectively). The overall mean (range) age for the mITT
populations was
46.8 (40 to 50) years, and the majority was female (69.4%, 109/157), white
(79.0%, 124/157),
and non-Hispanic (81.5%, 128/157). Race and race group varied significantly
across treatment
groups (p = 0.0312 and p = 0.0475, respectively); all other demographic
characteristics were
similar across treatment groups. A total of 161 patients were included in the
safety populations
(41, 39, 42, and 39 in the pilocarpine hydrochloride 0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%
groups,
respectively). The patient disposition is summarized below:
Table 1:
Pilo 0 Pilo 0.5% Pilo 1.0% Pilo 1.5%
(Group 1) (Group 2) (Group 3) (Group 4) Total
Safety 41 39 42 39 161
miTT 40 37 42 38 157
Completed 38 35 41 35 149
(95.0%) (94.6%) (97,6%) (92.1%) (94.9%)
Discontinued 2 2 1 3 8
(5.0%) (5.4%) (2.4%) (7.9%) (5,1%)
[00101] All patients in the mITT and safety populations completed the study
except for 2, 2, 1,
and 3 patients in the pilocarpine hydrochloride 0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% groups,
respectively,
who discontinued early due to withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up. The
demographic
and baseline characteristics in the mITT is summarized below:
23
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
Table 2:
Pilo 0% Pilo 0.5% Pilo 1.0% P110 Total
(N=40) (N=37) (N=42) (N=38) (N=157)
Mean Age (SO)
46,6 (IS) 47.1 (2.6) 46,8 (2.8): 464 (2.2):
46,8 (2;6)
(years)
% 40-47 pars 52.5% 43:2% :52.4% 632% =52.9%
Sex (% male) 20.0% 32.4% 3t0% 39,5% 30.6%
Race
% Whfte 77.5% 81.1% 66.7% 92,1% 79.0%
% Black 15.0% 13.5% 31.0% 7.9% 17.2%
% Asian 7.5% 0% 0% 0% 1.9%
% Other 0% 5.4% 2.4% 0% 1,9%
Baseline UNVA
% 20/40-20180 65.0% 70.3% 66.7% 68.4% 67.5%
'4./0 20/100 or worse 35.0% 29.7% 33.3% 31.6% 32..5%
[00102] Efficacy: To examine the primary efficacy variable, the average change
from baseline
in mesopic, high contrast UNVA letters in the nondominant eye between Hour 1
and Hour 10
during each 2-day dosing period was examined using mixed-effects model for
repeated measures
(MMRM) with response surface and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling
techniques.
[00103] The following additional efficacy analyses using the primary efficacy
measure were
also performed:
= the proportions of patients with at least 3 lines and 2 lines improvement
from
baseline in mesopic, high contrast UNVA at a majority of post dose time points
(6
or more) in the non-dominant eye,
= the proportions of patients with at least I line, 2 lines, and 3 lines
improvement
from baseline, and the proportions of patients classified as 20/40 or better,
20/32
or better, 20/25 or better, and 20/20 or better during the mesopic, high
contrast
UNVA evaluation in the nondominant eye and binocularly at each time point of
each dosing period, and
= changes from baseline in the number of lines and the number of correctly
read
letters during the mesopic, high contrast UNVA evaluation in the non-dominant
eye and binocularly at each time point of each dosing period.
24
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00104] All "other efficacy" analyses were performed at each time point of
each dosing period.
Changes from baseline were summarized for mesopic, near and distance pupil
diameter, and for
mesopic, near and distance accommodation in sphere and cylinder. The
proportions of patients
with at least 1 line, 2 lines, and 3 lines of improvement from baseline, and
the proportions of
patients classified as 20/40 or better, 20/32 or better, 20/25 or better, and
20/20 or better during
the mesopic, high contrast UDVA evaluation were calculated for the nondominant
eye and
binocularly.
Efficacy Results
A. Primary Efficacy Results:
[00105] To examine the primary efficacy variable, the average letter change
from baseline in
mesopic, high contrast UNVA in the nondominant eye between Hour 1 and Hour 10
during each
2-day dosing period, response surface and ANCOVA method analyses were
performed.
[00106] mITT population: The primary efficacy endpoint was the average change
from baseline
in mesopic, high contrast UNVA letters in the nondominant eye between Hour 1
and Hour 10
during each 2-day dosing period in the mITT population.
[00107] Overall, the response surface method analysis revealed a significant
dose response
driven by the pilocarpine dose (p <0.0001 and 0.0029), which was particularly
evident up to the
1% dose level. The average letter change from baseline across multiple
postdose timepoints
increased as pilocarpine dose levels increased, and an average improvement of
approximately 5
letters was observed for both the pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% and 1.5% dose
levels.
[00108] A graph of average letter change from baseline was also generated from
the results
calculated using ANCOVA. FIG. 1 illustrates the significant effect of
pilocarpine hydrochloride
dose on mesopic, high contrast UNVA letters correctly read with the non-
dominant eye up to the
1% dose level, after which the effect stabilized. A significant dose response
emerged that was
driven by the pilocarpine dose (p < 0.0001). As seen in the figure, the
vehicle and 0.5%
pilocarpine concentrations showed a relatively weaker effect on vision, with
mean improvements
from baseline of 1.12 and 3.40 letters, respectively. Surprisingly, 1%
pilocarpine showed a
numerically greater mean improvement from baseline of 5.25 letters versus the
higher
concentration of 1.5% pilocarpine, which had an improvement of 5.11 letters.
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
B. Additional Analyses Using the Primary Efficacy Measure
[00109] Responder Analyses: The proportions of patients in the mITT population
with at least 3
lines and at least 2 lines improvement from baseline in mesopic, high contrast
UNVA at a
majority of post dose timepoints (6 or more) in the non-dominant eye were also
calculated to
further examine the primary efficacy measure.
[00110] In addition, the proportions of patients with 1 line, 2 lines, and 3
lines improvement
from baseline and the proportions of patients classified as 20/40 or better,
20/32 or better, 20/25
or better, and 20/20 or better, during the mesopic, high contrast UNVA
evaluation, were
calculated by time point.
[00111] Table 3 shows the proportion of patients with at least 2 lines of
improvement from
baseline in mesopic, high contrast UNVA at a majority of postdose timepoints
in the
nondominant eye by treatment group. The proportion of responders increased
with increasing
pilocarpine hydrochloride dose up to the 1% dose level.
Table 3: Proportion of Responders with 2-Line Improvement in Mesopic, High
Contrast
Uncorrected Near Visual Acuity in the Nondominant Eye by Treatment Group (mITT
Population)
Pilo 0% Pilo 0.5% Pilo 1% Pilo 1.5%
39 37 42 36
Number (%) of Responders 1(2.6) 2 (5.4) 10(23.8)
8(22.2)
The values at Day 1 Hour 0 at each dosing period were used as baseline.
Responder was defined as a patient with at
least a 2-line improvement in mesopic, high contrast UNVA from baseline at a
majority of postdose timepoints (6 or
more) in the nondominant eye.
[00112] As a whole, these responder analyses provided further support for a
significant dose
response for mesopic, high contrast UNVA driven by pilocarpine hydrochloride
dose up to the
1% dose level. As a whole across most postdose timepoints, proportions of
patients with 1, 2,
and 3 lines of improvement from baseline in the nondominant eye increased as
dose levels of
pilocarpine hydrochloride increased up to 1%.
[00113] FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 show the proportion of responders with 3-line or 2-
line improvement
in mesopic UNVA (mITT population) at each time point for each tested group,
respectively. At
day 1, hour 1 in FIG. 8, the proportion of patients with a three line
improvement in mesopic
UNVA was 24% and 19% for pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% and 1.5%, respectively.
At day 2,
hour 1, the proportion of patients with a three line improvement in mesopic
UNVA was 27% and
26
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
30% for pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% and 1.5%, respectively. With reference to
FIG. 9, the
proportion of patients with a two line improvement in mesopic UNVA at day 1,
hour 1 was 43%
and 64% for pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% and 1.5%, respectively. At day 2,
hour 1, the
proportion of patients with a two line improvement in mesopic UNVA was 60% and
50% for
pilocarpine 1% and 1.5%, respectively.
[00114] Moreover, there was a statistically significant effect in 3 line
improvement of mesopic,
high contrast UNVA for pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% and 1.5% at both 1 and 3
hours post
dosing on day 1 and day 2 in comparison to the vehicle. There was also a
statistically significant
effect in 2 line improvement of mesopic, high contrast UNVA for pilocarpine 1%
and 1.5% at all
time points post dosing on day 1 and day 2.
C. Other Efficacy Results
[00115] Mesopic, High Contrast Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity
[00116] A similar analysis was performed during a mesopic, high contrast UDVA
evaluation.
FIG. 4 shows the average letter change from baseline under the condition of
UDVA over a 2-
day dosing period. While there were no significant effects on the change in
UDVA from
baseline for each treatment group, the average improvement in distance vision
was numerically
highest in the pilocarpine hydrochloride 1% group (mITT, non-dominant eye).
[00117] Safety Evaluation
[00118] The incidence of AEs with the vehicle (i.e. Pilo 0%) was similar to
the AEs of the other
pilocarpine groups. The lowest incidence of AEs was observed with the
pilocarpine 1% group.
There were no reports of burning or stinging and no unexpected safety findings
were made. No
patients were discontinued from the study due to an AE and no deaths occurred.
[00119] Oxymetazoline
[00120] FIG. 7 illustrates the change from baseline levels in letters read
under UNVA mesopic
conditions by timepoint, for 1% pilocarpine in combination with varying
concentrations of
oxymetazoline (0%, 0.0125%, 0.05%, 0.125% wily, and in a fixed combination of
1% w/v
pilocarpine hydrochloride and 0.125% w/v oxymetazoline hydrochloride). Similar
results were
seen for 1.5% pilocarpine in combination with oxymetazoline. With the
exception of some
minor timepoints, there was no significant difference in the duration of
effect and change in
letters read at a constant concentration of pilocarpine as the oxymetazoline
concentration was
27
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
varied. Moreover, there was no significant reduction in adverse events (e.g.,
headache) with the
addition of oxymetazoline.
[00121] These results were surprising and unexpected, since it was thought
that the
coadministration of oxymetazoline and pilocarpine (in either a fixed or
unfixed combination)
would have either extended the duration and/or magnitude of effect, or else
reduced the
incidence of side effects. Instead, no such results were seen, and pilocarpine
monotherapy (i.e.,
where pilocarpine is the sole active ingredient) was found to be as effective
as pilocarpine
coadministered with oxymetazoline.
EXAMPLE 3
[00122] Several compositions were prepared with the ingredients as set forth
below:
Table 4:
Formulation No:
1 2 3 4 5
Ingredient (% w/v)
Pilocarpine HCI 0.00 0.5 1.0 1.25 1.5
Benzalkonium chloride 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075
Boric acid 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sodium citrate
0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
dihyd rate
Sodium chloride 0.37 0.26 0.14 0.08 0.03
Hydrochloric acid
and/or Sodium pH 3.0-5.5 pH 3.0-5.5 pH 3.0-5.5 pH 3.0-
5.5 pH 3.0-5.5
hydroxide
Purified water QS QS QS QS QS
The density of formulations 1 - 5 are within 0.99 - 1.00 g/mL at 25.00 'C.
Hence, the composition ingredients in %
w/v is equivalent to the % w/w.
[00123] In the table above, the pH range may be from 3.0 to 5.5. In a
preferred embodiment,
the target pH is 5Ø
28
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
EXAMPLE 4
IN VITRO VISCOSITY TESTING
[00124] A study was conducted to compare the presence or absence of polymers
on the
viscosity of pilocarpine formulations. Currently available commercial
pilocarpine formulations
often contain viscosity-enhancing polymers serving to enhance the residence
time of the
formulation on the surface of the eye. For example, pilocarpine formulations
developed by
Alcon under the label "Isoptocarpine" contain hypromellose 2910 (also referred
to as hydroxy
propyl methyl cellulose). This same polymer is also found in other generic
pilocarpine
formulations (for example as currently sold by Akorn, Bausch & Lomb, and
Sandoz).
[00125] Two formulations from Example 3 above (Formulations 3 and 4,
containing 1% and
1.25% pilocarpine hydrochloride, respectively) were tested, together with
three Isoptocarpine
formulations with 1%, 2%, and 4% pilocarpine hydrochloride, as well as three
generic
pilocarpine formulations manufactured by Sandoz (also at 1%, 2%, and 4%).
Viscosity testing
was performed in accordance with USP <912> using a rotational viscometer. The
three
Isoptocarpine formulations were measured using an S18 spindle with a rotation
speed of 60 rpm.
The polymer-free Formulations 3 and 4 in accordance with the instant
application were measured
using an ultra-low viscosity spindle (00) with a rotation speed of 100 rpm. A
calibration check
was performed on the viscometer prior to analysis, and passed all requirements
listed in the
compendial chapter.
Table 5: Viscosity of Polymer-Free Pilocarpine Formulations Compared to
Commercial
Pilocarpine Formulations
IsoptoCarpine (Alcon) commercial Sandoz generic commercial Formulation 3
Formulation 4
formulations formulations
Pilocarpine 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 1.25%
(%w/v)
Viscosity 21 22 23 19 23 23 1 1
(cps)
[00126] As described in Table 5 above, the polymer-free Formulations 3 and 4
had identical
viscosities of 1 centipoise (cps). In contrast, the Isoptocarpine formulations
showed much higher
viscosities ranging from 21-23 cps. Similarly, the Sandoz generic pilocarpine
formulations also
showed higher viscosities ranging from 19-23 cps. At equal drug concentrations
of 1%
29
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
pilocarpine, the commercial formulations were approximately 20-fold more
viscous than the
polymer-free Formulation 4. This higher viscosity, due to the presence of
polymers in the
formulation, is believed to cause greater vision blurring when administered to
the eye. By
contrast, Formulation 4, which has a viscosity close to that of pure water (1
cps), is not likely to
lead to significant vision blur. Accordingly, polymer-free pilocarpine
formulations should cause
substantially lower vision blurring or other vision impairments, especially
when initially
administered.
EXAMPLE 5
IN VIVO TESTING
[00127] The ocular safety and tolerability of pilocarpine compositions was
evaluated in a rabbit
model. Specifically, Formulations 1 and 4 from Example 3 above were
administered to two
groups of five female albino New Zealand white rabbits. In Group 1, one drop (-
35 ILL) of
Formulation 1 (vehicle) as referred to in Table 4 was administered to the left
eye ("OS") once
daily, with nothing administered to the right eye ("013-). In Group 2,
Formulation 4 (1.25%
pilocarpine) as referred to in Table 4 was administered in a similar manner.
All animals were
treated in accordance with all requirements of the Guide for the Care and Use
of Laboratory
Animals and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and all
regulations issued by
the USDA implementing the Animal Welfare Act, 9 CFR, Parts 1, 2, and 3. Rabbit
pupil
diameter and gross ocular observations were compiled.
[00128] The pupil diameter measurements and ocular observation scales are
listed below:
Ocular Discomfort Description
Score Description
0 None: no consistent blinking or squinting. Some blinking
may be seen
as an adjustment to drop placement
+1 Minimal: intermittent blinking
+2 Mild: repeated blinking and/or squinting; partial
closure of the eye
may be observed
+3 Moderate: repeated blinking and/or squinting with
complete closure
of the eye
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
+4 Severe: firm closure of the eye for prolonged interval
with pawing or
rubbing is noted
Ocular Discomfort Duration
Score Description
+1 One to 30 seconds.
+2 Thirty-one seconds to 60 seconds (one minute).
+3 Sixty-one seconds to 120 seconds (two minutes).
+4 One hundred twenty-one seconds and greater.
Hyperemia
Score Description
0 Normal: may appear blanched to reddish pink without
perilimbal
injection (except at 12 and 6 o'clock positions) with vessels of the
palpebral and bulbar conjunctiva easily observed
+1 Mild: a flushed, reddish color predominantly confined to
the palpebral
conjunctiva with some perilimbal injection but primarily confined to
the lower and upper parts of the eye from the 4 and 7 o'clock and the
11 and 1 o'clock positions.
+2 Moderate: bright crimson red color of the palpebral
conjunctiva with
accompanying perilimbal injection covering at least 75% of the
circumference of the perilimbal region. Individual vessels are not
easily discernable
+3 Severe: dark, beefy red color with congestion of both
the bulbar and
the palpebral conjunctiva along with pronounced perilimbal injection.
Petechiae may be present on the nictitating membrane and/or the
upper palpebral conjunctiva
Swelling
Score Description
0 Normal: no swelling of the conjunctival tissue
+1 Minimal: swelling above normal without eversion of the
lids (can be
easily ascertained by noting that the upper and lower eyelids are
positioned as in the normal eye); swelling generally starts in the lower
cul-de-sac near the inner canthus
31
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
+2 Mild: swelling with misalignment of the normal
approximation of the
lower and upper eyelids; primarily confined to the upper eyelid so that
in the initial stages the misapproximation of the eyelids begins by
partial eversion of the upper eyelid. In this stage, swelling is confined
generally to the upper eyelid, although it exists in the lower cul-de-sac
+3 Moderate: swelling definite with partial eversion of the
upper and
lower eyelids essentially equivalent. This can be easily ascertained by
looking at the animal head-on and noticing the positioning of the
eyelids; if the eye margins do not meet, eversion has occurred (Eye
lids appear half-closed)
+4 Severe: if eversion of the upper eyelid is pronounced
with less
pronounced eversion of the lower eyelid, and it is difficult to retract
the lids and observe the perilimbal region (eye lids appear more than
half-closed), add the comment "Extreme" to the numerical score
Discharge
Score Description
0 Normal: no discharge
+1 Mild: discharge above normal and present on the inner
portion of the
eye but not on the lids or hairs of the eyelids. One can ignore the small
amount that is in the inner and outer canthus if it has not been
removed prior to starting the study
+2 Moderate: discharge is abundant, easily observed, and
has collected
on the lids and around the hairs of the eyelids
+3 Severe: discharge has been flowing over the eyelids to
wet the hairs
substantially on the skin around the eye
NOTE: Watery fluid from the eye seen immediately after instillation
that does not accumulate or substantially wet the hair around the eye is
not graded. Tearing (clear watery fluid seen in the cul-de-sac of the
lower lid and/or wetting the hair just below the eye) is noted but not
graded.
[00129] The tables below summarize the incidences of gross ocular observations
in the two
groups of rabbits. "Pre" refers to the incidence of gross ocular observations
prior to initiation of
the study.
32
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
Table 6:
Ocular Discomfort
Group Hyperemia +1
+1 (minimal)*, Swelling Discharge
1 (mild)*
Duration +1
11=5 Day # OS OD OS OD OS OD OS OD
'
pre 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*There were no reports of ocular discomfort or hyperemia greater than +1.
Table 7:
Ocular Discomfort
Group Hyperemia +1
2 +1 (minimal)*,(mild)* Swelling Discharge
Duration +1
n=5 Day # OS OD OS OD OS OD OS OD
pre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*There were no reports of ocular discomfort or hyperemia greater than +1.
Note: In both Tables 6 and 7, the numbers under columns "OS" and "OD" refer to
the numbers
of rabbits with the respective gross ocular observations in that particular
eye.
33
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00130] As shown above, the tested pilocarpine formulation was well tolerated,
with some of
the treated rabbits showing only minimal ocular discomfort (+1, described as
intermittent
blinking), and with a minor duration of one to thirty seconds (+1). Similarly,
only very mild and
transient hyperemia described as "a flushed, reddish color predominantly
confined to the
palpebral conjunctiva with some perilimbal injection but primarily confined to
the lower and
upper parts of the eye from the 4 and 7 o'clock and the 11 and 1 o'clock
positions" (+1 on the
scale). No rabbits were observed to experience any swelling or discharge, or
for that matter
elevated ocular discomfort or hyperemia above +1 on the respective scales.
EXAMPLE 6
CLINICAL STUDY C AND ANALYSIS
[00131] A clinical study was conducted to compare and evaluate ocular blur and
discomfort for
two concentrations of pilocarpine hydrochloride (Formulations 3 and 4 in Table
4) to a
commercially marketed 1% pilocarpine hydrochloride formulation, manufactured
by Sandoz.
This 1% Sandoz pilocarpine formulation¨hereinafter referred to as "commercial
pilocarpine" or
"1% commercial pilocarpine"¨was also tested in Example 4 and contains the same
ingredients
mentioned previously (including Hypromellose 2910, a viscosity-enhancing
polymer). Five
patients passed the initial screening visit and continued in the clinical
study.
[00132] Study procedures: With reference to the study design illustrated in
FIG. 10, the study
consisted of a Screening visit followed by two Assessment visits. Treatments
were administered
by a different investigator than those administering questionnaires, so as to
mask investigators to
results of the study until its completion. Participants were also masked to
the study treatments.
[00133] At the Screening visit, participants provided informed consent, took a
urine pregnancy
test (women of childbearing potential only), provided relevant
medical/ophthalmic history, had
their vision and intraocular pressures measured, and underwent biomicroscopic
and dilated
retinal exams. Adverse events were queried, and eligible participants were
then enrolled in the
study.
[00134] The Assessment 1 visit occurred after at least 48 hours and up to 18
days following the
Screening visit. Participants were randomized to receive Formulation 3 (1%
pilocarpine) in the
right or left eye, and 1% commercial pilocarpine in the contralateral eye.
This assignment was
34
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
continued on a per-patient basis throughout the study (except that as noted
below, Formulation 4
replaced Formulation 3 at Assessment 2). The Assessment 1 visit involved a
baseline
biomicroscopic examination and a baseline Ocular Discomfort and Blurry Vision
Questionnaire
assessment (both detailed below). One drop of Formulation 3 was instilled in
the randomized
eye, and one drop of commercial pilocarpine 1% was instilled in the
contralateral eye. The
Ocular Discomfort and Blurry Vision Questionnaire was performed prior to drop
instillation and
at 30 seconds, 1 minute, 90 seconds, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes and 5
minutes after drop
instillation, and answered simultaneously for both eyes independently.
Biomicroscopic
examination was performed at 5 minutes and 60 minutes in both eyes. Adverse
Effects (AEs)
were also assessed.
[00135] The Assessment 2 visit occurred after at least 48 hours and up to 6
months following
the Assessment I visit. This assessment compared the same in-eye
characteristics as those
evaluated in Assessment 1 using a slightly higher dose of the pilocarpine
hydrochloride (i.e.
1.25%, Formulation 4) versus 1% commercial pilocarpine. The same eye randomly
assigned to
Formulation 3 at the Assessment 1 visit received Formulation 4 at the
Assessment 2 visit. The
procedures of Assessment 2 were otherwise the same as in Assessment 1.
Participants exited the
study at the end of the Assessment 2 visit.
[00136] Detailed Diagnostic Ocular Procedures: A biomicroscopy (slit lamp)
examination was
performed to assess the ocular surface including the cornea, conjunctiva, and
eyelids in both eyes
and pathology was graded on scale of 0 (none) to 4 (severe).
[00137] The intraocular pressure (TOP) measurement was performed at a slit
lamp with a
Goldmann Tonometer in both eyes. One drop of an anesthetic agent (either
Proparacaine 0.5%
or Tetracaine 0.5%) was instilled in both eyes, and a fluorescein strip
applied to the tear film in
inferior fornix. Gentle applanation on the cornea with the tonometer was
performed to measure
the IOP and the results recorded in mmHg.
[00138] The pupils in both eyes were dilated with one drop of tropicamide eye
drops and one
drop of 2.5% phenylephrine, and repeated as needed 5 to 15 minutes later until
the pupils were
adequately dilated. A dilated Retinal Examination was performed using an
indirect
ophthalmoscope with a Volk 28D or Volk 20D lens for examination of the retinal
periphery and
the slit lamp with the Volk Super Field NC lens or 90D lens for examination of
the posterior
pole. Any retinal pathology was graded on scale of 0 (none) to 4 (severe).
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00139] Detailed Ocular Discomfort and Blurry Vision Questionnaire Procedure:
Ocular
Discomfort and Blurry Vision Questionnaires were conducted in Assessment 1 and
2 at baseline,
then at 30 seconds, 1 minute, 90 seconds, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes and
5 minutes after
instillation of the study drug. The questionnaires consist of two visual
analog scales ("VAS") to
assess the degree of the participant's ocular discomfort and blurry vision.
Participants were
instructed to mark a vertical line on the anchored VAS that best captures how
their eyes were
feeling at the current moment. A trained member of the study personnel then
used a provided
ruler to convert the participant's response to a numerical value (0 to 100).
This evaluation was
conducted simultaneously for each eye independently. The questionnaire read as
follows (Note:
The VAS scales were an actual scale and not just text as indicated below):
Think about how each eye is feeling right now. Then, using the scales provided
below, please mark a vertical line that best describes your experience with
these
symptoms:
Blurry vision (VAS anchors: 0 = no blurry/ vision, 100 = maximum blurry
vision)
Ocular discomfort (VAS anchors: 0 = no ocular discomfort, 100 = maximum
ocular discomfort)
[00140] Ocular hyperemia was also evaluated at baseline, five minutes post-
assessment, and 60
minutes post-assessment during both Assessments 1 and 2. Hyperemia was also
assessed once
during the initial screening process Such hyperemia was assessed on a five-
point scale as a
component of the biomicroscopy evaluation, with the scoring being graded as
follows: 0 = None;
+0.5 = Trace; +1 = Mild; +2 = Moderate; +3 = Severe. Ocular hyperemia
assessments were
separately evaluated for the following three areas: eyelid/eyelid
margins/eyelash, conjunctiva
(bulbar or palpebral), and the cornea.
[00141] Results: The results of Clinical Study C showed several unexpected
results in favor of
the polymer-free Formulations 3 and 4, in contrast with the 1% commercial
pilocarpine
formulation.
[00142] Assessment 1 visit: with reference to FIGS. 11A and 11B, Formulation 3
was shown to
demonstrate less ocular blur and ocular discomfort on the VAS scale at each
timepoint over five
minutes, in comparison with the commercial pilocarpine formulation. Moreover,
and with
36
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
reference to FIG. 12A, Formulation 3 showed significantly less mean ocular
blur over a five-
minute time period following instillation compared to the commercial
pilocarpine formulation
(p=0.0156). With reference to FIG. 12B, Formulation 3 showed a numerically
lower mean
ocular discomfort over a five-minute time period following instillation
compared to the
commercial pilocarpine formulation (p=0.0966).
[00143] Assessment 2 visit: referring now to FIGS. 13A and B, Formulation 4
was shown to
demonstrate less ocular blur on the VAS scale at each timepoint over five
minutes, and less
initial ocular discomfort for the first four timepoints, in comparison with
the commercial
pilocarpine formulation. The mean ocular blur over a five-minute time period
following
instillation was significantly lower for Formulation 4 in comparison to the
commercial
pilocarpine formulation (p=0.0492), as shown in FIG. 14A. FIG 14B also shows
that
Formulation 4 had a numerically lower mean ocular discomfort score across that
same time
period (p=0.1978).
[00144] Safety results: Patient-reported adverse events were tabulated, and
are set forth below in
Table 8.
Table 8:
Adverse Event 1% Commercial pilocarpine Formulation 3
Formulation 4
Eye pain 2 1
Brow ache 3 1
Blurry vision 5
Light sensitivity 1
Stinging 1
Itching 1
Total 13 1 1
[00145] With reference to Table 8, there were surprisingly a much larger
number of reported
adverse events-13 total¨in patient eyes receiving the 1% commercial
pilocarpine formulation.
By comparison, only one adverse event was reported for each of the patient
eyes receiving either
Formulation 3 (1% pilocarpine) or Formulation 4 (1.25% pilocarpine). Adverse
events such as
blurry vision, light sensitivity, stinging, and itching were only seen in the
commercial pilocarpine
formulation, and such adverse events were not reported for the other two
tested formulations.
Moreover, the eyes dosed with commercial pilocarpine exhibited higher
incidences of
37
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
hyperemia, for example at five minutes post instillation. At that time period,
the mean of non-
zero hyperemia scores for the commercial pilocarpine (across both Assessments
1 and 2) was
0.9375. By comparison, the mean of non-zero hyperemia scores for Formulation 3
during
Assessment 1 was only 0.75, while Formulation 4 showed a mean non-zero
hyperemia score of
0.5 for Assessment 2.
[00146] The results of Clinical Study C indicated that polymer-free
pilocarpine formulations
(Formulations 3 and 4) unexpectedly showed far lower incidences of blurring
and ocular
discomfort in comparison with the tested 1% commercial pilocarpine formulation
which
contained polymers. These results were particularly unexpected for Formulation
4, which
contained a higher amount of pilocarpine than the commercial pilocarpine
formulation.
Moreover, the incidence of adverse events and hyperemia was greater in the
commercial
pilocarpine formulation versus either Formulations 3 and 4. At the same time,
although ocular
blurring and ocular discomfort were slightly higher for Formulation 4 versus
Formulation 3,
these were minor increases in comparison to the much greater blurring and
discomfort seen with
the commercial pilocarpine formulation.
[00147] Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is possible that the
differences between the
commercial pilocarpine and the two other tested formulations are due at least
in part to the
viscosity-enhancing polymers found in the commercial pilocarpine formulation.
Such
ingredients, typically used to increase residence time on the ocular surface
so as to reduce the
need to administer pilocarpine multiple times a day for effective glaucoma
treatment, appear to
have a hitherto unrecognized effect on reducing the tolerability of
pilocarpine. These findings
also surprisingly stand at odds with conventional wisdom, where those same
polymers (e.g.,
hypromellose) are often added into ocular formulations so as to increase
ocular comfort. The
opposite appears to be the case, as seen in the previously-described results
where the polymer-
free compositions achieved greater ocular comfort.
[00148] Here, the amounts of pilocarpine found to be effective for the
improvement of vision
parameters or treating certain ocular conditions (e.g., presbyopia) mean that
effective
improvement or treatment is possible without requiring the polymers typically
found in
pilocarpine preparations for glaucoma. Additionally, even with a 25% higher
concentration of
pilocarpine used Formulation 4 (1.25%), this formulation nevertheless showed a
lower incidence
of ocular blurring, ocular discomfort, adverse events, and hyperemia compared
to the 1%
38
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
commercial pilocarpine formulation, while at the same time improving vision
parameters and/or
treating ocular conditions such as presbyopia better than formulations
containing differing
amounts of pilocarpine.
EXAMPLE 7
CLINICAL STUDY D
[00149] A Phase 3, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled,
parallel-group
study is conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of
Formulation 4
(1.25% pilocarpine) dosed once daily and bilaterally, over a period of 30 days
in participants
with presbyopia.
[00150] The study population consists of adult male and female participants
with objective and
subjective evidence of presbyopia, and approximately 266 participants are
enrolled. Participants
are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Formulation 4 or vehicle dosed
once daily, in each
eye, for 30 days. This randomization is stratified by age (two groups: < 50
years and > 50 years),
baseline binocular DCNVA (two groups: 20/40 to 20/60 inclusively, and worse
than 20/60), iris
color (brown and non-brown), and emmetropes/non-emmetropes. This study
consists of the
following visits: screening (Days -30 to -1), Day 1 (baseline), and Days 3, 7,
14, and 30.
[00151] Efficacy is evaluated using measures of mesopic and photopic high
contrast distance-
corrected near visual acuity ("DCNVA") and high contrast distance-corrected
intermediate visual
acuity ("DCIVA") for each eye and binocularly. Additionally, mesopic and
photopic pupil
diameter (distance and near) are evaluated, as well as depth of focus and
patient-reported
outcome questionnaires. These questionnaires include the following: Mesopic
and Photopic
Near Vision Presbyopia Task-based Questionnaire, Presbyopia Impact and Coping
Questionnaire, Presbyopia Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Single-Item
Patient Global
Impression of Change, Single-Item Patient Global Impression of Status, and
Single-Item Patient
Expectations for Treatment Efficacy.
[00152] Safety and tolerability are evaluated by eliciting adverse events, as
well as photopic and
mesopic high contrast corrected distance visual acuity for each eye and
binocularly, near contrast
sensitivity, vital signs (blood pressure and heart rate), study drug
tolerability and drop comfort
assessments, temporal/supraorbital headache (visual analog scale), intraocular
pressure, slit-lamp
39
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
biomicroscopy, manifest refraction, dilated funduscopic examination, and a
pregnancy test for
women of childbearing potential (during screening). Pharmacokinetics are also
evaluated by
testing plasma concentrations of pilocarpine at selected sites.
[00153] The results of this study show that 1.25% pilocarpine hydrochloride
administered once
daily is safe and effective for the improvement of at least one vision
parameter (e.g., near vision
acuity, distance vision acuity, etc.) and/or at least one ocular condition
(e.g., presbyopia).
[00154] Non-limiting examples in accordance with the present invention are as
follows.
EXAMPLE 8
[00155] A 42 year old woman complains of an increasing inability to focus on
text when
reading documents at work. The woman is seen by an ophthalmologist who
performs a visual
acuity test in which she is asked to read lines of letters on an eye chart
without the assistance of
glasses or contacts (neither of which she wears). She finds that she is only
able to read the first
four lines on the chart, when a person with normal vison should be able to
read six. Based on the
woman's age and results of the test, she is diagnosed with presbyopia. The
woman is reluctant to
have to obtain reading glasses or wear contact lenses and asks if there are
any other medical
treatments. She is instructed to administer to her eyes the composition of
Formulation 4, as set
out in Table 4, once daily. After administration of the dose, she finds that
her vision improves.
On a follow-up visit to the ophthalmologist and after having again
administered Formulation 4 to
her eyes, she is again asked to read lines of letters on an eye chart. This
time, she is able to read
the first six lines on the chart, a two line improvement over her previous
results. She
experienced no eye discomfort or hyperemia from the eye drop.
EXAMPLE 9
[00156] A 66 year old man reports dissatisfaction with his bifocal glasses,
which, due to the two
different refractive indices in the component parts of the lenses, have caused
him to nearly fall
several times when descending stairs. His ophthalmologist, having previously
diagnosed him
with presbyopia, instructs him to administer once daily to his eyes a
pilocarpine hydrochloride
formulation as set forth in Table 4. After administration, the patient finds
that his near and
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
distance vision are improved, and that he no longer requires near and distance
visual correction
with glasses.
EXAMPLE 10
[00157] A 31 year old man has been diagnosed with hyperopia, and consequently
has difficulty
reading documents and other text at a close distance (e.g., at arm's length
from the body),
especially in dim lighting. After a visit to his optometrist, who prescribes
him a polymer-free
1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic formulation for once daily use,
he finds that his
near vision is improved. Moreover, he finds that he is able to see more easily
in dim lighting and
while driving at night.
EXAMPLE 11
[00158] As a result of a car accident, a 40 year old woman experienced head
trauma that
resulted in some nerve injury manifesting partly as anisocoria, with the pupil
in her left eye being
larger than the right. The resulting photosensitivity due to her increased
pupil size causes
discomfort. Her doctor instmcts her to instill a pilocarpine hydrochloride
formulation into the
affected eye. The miotic effect reduces her ocular discomfort and treats the
anisocoria.
EXAMPLE 12
[00159] A 36 year old woman complains of difficulties reading text at near and
far distances.
After a visual acuity test, her optometrist diagnoses her as having decreased
visual acuity due to
a combination of myopia and astigmatism. Because she does not want to wear
glasses, she is
prescribed the Formulation 3 (set forth in Table 4). After administration of
one drop of the
formulation once daily, she returns to the optometrist for a followup visit
after a week. Here,
both her near and distance vision acuity were found to have increased by at
least two lines from
her baseline visit prior to treatment.
[00160] While certain embodiments of the invention have been described, other
embodiments
may exist. While the specification includes a detailed description, the
invention's scope is
indicated by the following claims.
41
The specific features and acts described above are
disclosed as illustrative aspects and embodiments of the invention. Various
other aspects,
embodiments, modifications, and equivalents thereof which, after reading the
description herein,
may suggest themselves to one of ordinary skill in the art
Additional illustrative embodiments
are described in the clauses below:
[00161] Clause 1: A method of treating an ocular condition in a patient in
need thereof,
comprising administering to the patient a pharmaceutically acceptable
ophthalmic composition
comprising pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v,
wherein the
formulation is administered topically to at least one eye of the patient, and
wherein the ocular
condition is selected from the group consisting of presbyopia, hyperopia,
mydriasis, anisocoria,
accommodative esotropia, myopia, and astigmatism.
[00162] Clause 2: A method of improving at least one vision parameter in a
patient in need
thereof
comprising administering to the patient a pharmaceutically acceptable
ophthalmic
composition comprising pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0
to 1.5% w/v,
wherein the formulation is administered topically to at least one eye of the
patient, and
wherein the at least one vision parameter is selected from the group
consisting of near vision
acuity, intermediate vision acuity, distance vision acuity, night vision, day
vision, glare, and
light scattering.
[00163] Clause 3: A method for improvement of near vision in a patient with
presbyopia in need
thereof, comprising administering to an eye of the patient a pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition comprising pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration
from 1.0 to
1.5% w/v.
[00164] Clause 4: The method of clause 1, wherein the ocular condition is
presbyopia.
[00165] Clause 5: The method of clause 1, wherein the ocular condition is
hyperopia.
[00166] Clause 6: The method of clause 1, wherein the ocular condition is
mydriasis.
[00167] Clause 7: The method of clause 2, wherein the vision parameter is near
vision acuity.
[00168] Clause 8: The method of clause 2, wherein the vision parameter is
intermediate vision
acuity.
42
[00169] Clause 9: The method of clause 2, wherein the vision parameter is
distance vision
acuity.
[00170] Clause 10: The method of clause 2, wherein the vision parameter is
night vision.
[00171] Clause 11: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 3-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
mesopic, high contrast
UNVA.
[00172] Clause 12: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 2-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
mesopic, high contrast
UNVA.
[00173] Clause 13: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an increase in the average letter change from baseline under the condition
of mesopic, high
contrast UNVA.
[00174] Clause 14: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 2-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
photopic, high contrast
UNVA.
[00175] Clause 15: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 2-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
photopic, high contrast
UDVA.
[00176] Clause 16: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 3-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
mesopic, high contrast
DCNVA.
[00177] Clause 17: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 3-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
photopic, high contrast
DCNVA.
[00178] Clause 18: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 3-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
mesopic, high contrast
DCI VA.
[00179] Clause 19: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
method results
in an at least 3-line improvement from baseline under the condition of
photopic, high contrast
DCI VA.
43
[00180] Clause 20: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition comprises pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a
concentration that is greater than or equal to 1% and less than 1.5% wiv.
[00181] Clause 21: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition comprises pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a
concentration of 1.25% w/v.
[00182] Clause 22: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein
pilocarpine
hydrochloride is the sole active ingredient in the pharmaceutically acceptable
ophthalmic
composition.
[00183] Clause 23: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition does not comprise a
polymer.
[00184] Clause 24: The method of clause 23, wherein administration of the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition results in a lower incidence of at least one
of ocular blurring,
ocular discomfort, eye pain, brow ache, blurry vision, light sensitivity,
stinging, and itching,
compared to administration of a second ophthalmic composition comprising
pilocarpine and a
polymer.
[00185] Clause 25: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition further comprises boric
acid, sodium citrate
dihydrate, sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and
water.
[00186] Clause 26: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered once daily.
[00187] Clause 27: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered twice
daily.
[00188] Clause 28: The method of any one of the preceding clauses, wherein the
pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered to both
eyes of the patient.
[00189] Clause 29: The method of any one of clauses 1-27, wherein the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered to the nondominant eye of
the patient.
[00190] Clause 30: The method of any one of clauses 1-27, wherein the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered to the dominant eye of the
patient.
[00191] Clause 31: A composition for the treatment of an ocular condition,
wherein the
composition is pharmaceutically acceptable and comprises pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a
44
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v, and wherein the ocular condition is
selected from the group
consisting of presbyopia, hyperopia, mydriasis, anisocoria, accommodative
esotropia, myopia,
and astigmatism.
[00192] Clause 32: The composition of clause 31, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, and the ocular condition is presbyopia.
[00193] Clause 33: The composition of clause 31, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid, sodium citrate dihydrate, sodium
chloride,
hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water.
[00194] Clause 34: The composition of any one of clauses 31-33, wherein the
composition is
applied once daily.
[00195] Clause 35: The composition of any one of clauses 31-33, wherein the
composition is
applied twice daily.
[00196] Clause 36: The composition of any one of clauses 31-35, wherein the
composition is
administered to both eyes of a patient.
[00197] Clause 37: The composition of any one of clauses 31-35, wherein the
composition is
administered to a nondominant eye of a patient.
[00198] Clause 38: The composition of any one of clauses 31-35, wherein the
composition is
administered to a dominant eye of a patient.
[00199] Clause 39: The composition of any one of clauses 31-38, wherein
pilocarpine
hydrochloride is the sole active ingredient.
[00200] Clause 40: The composition of any one of clauses 31-39, further
comprising a
preservative.
[00201] Clause 41: The composition of clause 40, wherein the preservative is
benzalkonium
chloride.
[00202] Clause 42: The composition of clause 31, wherein the composition
comprises about
1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about 0.015%
w/v sodium
citrate dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075% w/v
benzalkonium
chloride.
[00203] Clause 43: The composition of clause 42, wherein the composition
consists essentially
of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium
citrate
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
dihydrate, 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride,
with a pH of
5Ø
[00204] Clause 44: The composition of any one of clauses 31-43, wherein the
composition
reduces the incidence of at least one adverse event selected from the group
consisting of ocular
blurring, ocular discomfort, eye pain, brow ache, blurry vision, light
sensitivity, ocular stinging,
and ocular itching, compared to administration of a second ophthalmic
composition comprising
pilocarpine and a polymer.
[00205] Clause 45: The composition of clause 44, wherein the second
composition comprises
1% w/v pilocarpine and the polymer is hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose.
[00206] Clause 46: A composition for improving at least one vision parameter,
wherein the
composition is pharmaceutically acceptable and comprises pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a
concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v, and wherein the at least one vision
parameter is selected
from the group consisting of near vision acuity, distance vision acuity, night
vision, day vision,
glare, and light scattering.
[00207] Clause 47: The composition of clause 46, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, and the vision parameter is near vision acuity.
[00208] Clause 48: The composition of clause 46, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, and the vision parameter is distance vision
acuity.
[00209] Clause 49: The composition of clause 46, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid, sodium citrate dihydrate, sodium
chloride,
hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water.
[00210] Clause 50: The composition of any one of clauses 46-49, wherein the
composition is
applied once daily.
[00211] Clause 51: The composition of any one of clauses 46-49, wherein the
composition is
applied twice daily.
[00212] Clause 52: The composition of any one of clauses 46-51, wherein the
composition is
administered to both eyes of a patient.
[00213] Clause 53: The composition of any one of clauses 46-51, wherein the
composition is
administered to a nondominant eye of a patient.
[00214] Clause 54: The composition of any one of clauses 46-51, wherein the
composition is
administered to a dominant eye of a patient.
46
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00215] Clause 55: The composition of any one of clauses 46-54, wherein
pilocarpine
hydrochloride is the sole active ingredient.
[00216] Clause 56: The composition of any one of clauses 46-55, further
comprising a
preservative.
[00217] Clause 57: The composition of clause 56, wherein the preservative is
benzalkonium
chloride.
[00218] Clause 58: The composition of clause 46, wherein the composition
comprises about
1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about 0.015%
w/v sodium
citrate dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075% w/v
benzalkonium
chloride.
[00219] Clause 59: The composition of clause 58, wherein the composition
consists essentially
of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium
citrate
dihydrate, 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride,
with a pH of
5Ø
[00220] Clause 60: A composition for improvement of near vision in a patient
with presbyopia,
wherein the composition is pharmaceutically acceptable and comprises
pilocarpine
hydrochloride at a concentration from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v.
[00221] Clause 61: The composition of clause 60, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, and the ocular condition is presbyopia.
[00222] Clause 62: The composition of clause 60, wherein the composition
comprises 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid, sodium citrate dihydrate, sodium
chloride,
hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water.
[00223] Clause 63: The composition of any one of clauses 60-62, wherein the
composition is
administered once daily.
[00224] Clause 64: The composition of any one of clauses 60-63, wherein
pilocarpine
hydrochloride is the sole active ingredient.
[00225] Clause 65: The composition of any one of clauses 60-64, further
comprising a
preservative.
[00226] Clause 66: The composition of clause 65, wherein the preservative is
benzalkonium
chloride.
47
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00227] Clause 67: The composition of clause 60, wherein the composition
comprises about
1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about 0.015%
w/v sodium
citrate dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075% w/v
benzalkonium
chloride.
[00228] Clause 68: The composition of clause 67, wherein the composition
consists essentially
of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium
citrate
dihydrate, 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride,
with a pH of
5Ø
[00229] Clause 69: A composition for the improvement of near vision in a
patient with
presbyopia, the composition comprising 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride,
1.0% w/v boric
acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate dihydrate, 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, 0.0075%
w/v
benzalkonium chloride, and water, with a pH of 3.0-5.5.
[00230] Clause 70: The composition of clause 69, wherein the composition
consists of 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate
dihydrate,
0.08% w/v sodium chloride, 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium chloride, and water, with
a pH of 5Ø
[00231] Clause 71: The composition of clause 69 or 70, wherein the composition
is topically
administered to the patient once daily.
[00232] Clause 72: A method for the improvement of near vision in a patient
with presbyopia,
wherein the method comprises administering to at least one eye of the patient
a pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition comprising pilocarpine as the sole active
ingredient, wherein
said composition does not contain any viscosity-enhancing polymers.
[00233] Clause 73: The method of clause 72, wherein the composition comprises
pilocarpine
hydrochloride.
[00234] Clause 74: The method of clause 73, wherein the composition comprises
1.25% w/v
pilocarpine hydrochloride.
[00235] Clause 75: The method of clause 72, wherein the composition comprises
pilocarpine
nitrate.
[00236] Clause 76: The method of any one of clauses 72-75, wherein the
composition
comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride or a molar equivalent
pilocarpine salt.
[00237] Clause 77: The method of any one of clauses 72-76, wherein the
composition is
administered once daily.
48
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00238] Clause 78: The method of any one of clauses 72-76, wherein the
composition is
administered twice daily.
[00239] Clause 79: The method of any one of clauses 72-78, wherein the
composition is
administered to a nondominant eye of the patient.
[00240] Clause 80: The method of any one of clauses 72-78, wherein the
composition is
administered to a dominant eye of the patient.
[00241] Clause 81: The method of any one of clauses 72-78, wherein the
composition is
administered to both eyes of the patient.
[00242] Clause 82: The method of any one of clauses 72-81, wherein the polymer
is hydroxy
propyl methyl cellulose.
[00243] Clause 83: The method of any one of clauses 72-82, wherein
administration of the
pharmaceutically acceptable composition reduces the incidence of one or more
adverse events
compared to the administration of a pilocarpine composition comprising one or
more viscosity-
enhancing polymers.
[00244] Clause 84: The method of clause 83, wherein the one or more adverse
events are
selected from the group consisting of ocular blurring, ocular discomfort, eye
pain, brow ache,
blurry vision, light sensitivity, ocular stinging, and ocular itching.
[00245] Clause 85: A method comprising administering to at least one eye of a
patient with
presbyopia a pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition comprising a
first amount of
pilocarpine hydrochloride as the sole active ingredient, wherein such
administration is made
without previously administering a second amount of pilocarpine hydrochloride
and/or
subsequently administering a third amount of pilocarpine hydrochloride;
wherein the second
amount is lower than the first amount, and wherein the third amount is higher
than the first
amount.
[00246] Clause 86: The method of clause 85, wherein the first amount of
pilocarpine
hydrochloride is 1.25% w/v.
[00247] Clause 87: The method of any one of clauses 85-86, wherein the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered to both eyes of the patient.
[00248] Clause 88: The method of any one of clauses 85-87, wherein the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered once daily.
49
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
[00249] Clause 89: The method of any one of clauses 85-87, wherein the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition is administered twice daily.
[00250] Clause 90. A method of treating an ocular condition in a patient in
need thereof,
comprising administering to the patient a pharmaceutically acceptable
ophthalmic composition
comprising pilocarpine hydrochloride at a concentration of about 1.25% w/v,
wherein the
formulation is administered topically to at least one eye of the patient, and
wherein the ocular
condition is selected from the group consisting of presbyopia, hyperopia,
mydriasis, anisocoria,
accommodative esotropia, myopia, and astigmatism.
[00251] Clause 91: The method of clause 90, wherein the ocular condition is
presbyopia.
[00252] Clause 92: The method of clause 90, wherein the ocular condition is
hyperopia.
[00253] Clause 93: The method of clause 90, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition is administered to both eyes of the patient.
[00254] Clause 94: The method of clause 90, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition is administered to the dominant eye of the patient.
[00255] Clause 95: The method of clause 90, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition is administered once daily.
[00256] Clause 96: The method of clause 90, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition is administered twice daily.
[00257] Clause 97: The method of clause 90, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
ophthalmic composition has a duration of effect of at least six hours.
[00258] Clause 98: The method of clause 90, wherein administration of the
pharmaceutically
acceptable ophthalmic composition results in a lower incidence of at least one
of ocular blurring,
ocular discomfort, eye pain, brow ache, blurry vision, light sensitivity,
stinging, and itching,
compared to administration of a second ophthalmic composition comprising
pilocarpine and a
polymer.
[00259] Clause 99: The method of clause 90, wherein the composition does not
comprise any
viscosity-enhancing polymers.
[00260] Clause 100: The method of clause 90, wherein pilocarpine hydrochloride
is the sole
active ingredient in the pharmaceutically acceptable ophthalmic composition.
[00261] Clause 101: The method of clause 90, wherein the composition comprises
1.25% w/v
pilocarpine hydrochloride, boric acid, sodium citrate dihydrate, sodium
chloride, hydrochloric
acid and/or sodium hydroxide, and water.
[00262] Clause 102: The method of clause 101, wherein the composition
comprises about 1.25%
w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% wily boric acid, about 0.015% w/v
sodium citrate
dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075% w/v benzalkonium
chloride.
[00263] Clause 103: The method of clause 90, wherein the ocular condition is
presbyopia, and
wherein the composition consists essentially of 1.25% w/v pilocarpine
hydrochloride, 1.0% w/v
boric acid, 0.015% w/v sodium citrate dihydrate, 0.08% w/v sodium chloride,
and 0.0075% w/v
benzalkonium chloride, with a pH of 3.0-5.5.
[00264] Clause 104: A method for improvement of near vision in a patient with
presbyopia in
need thereof, comprising administering to an eye of the patient a
pharmaceutically acceptable
composition comprising pilocarpine hydrochloride as the sole active agent at a
concentration
from 1.0 to 1.5% w/v.
[00265] Clause 105: The method of clause 104, where the pharmaceutically
acceptable
composition is administered once daily.
[00266] Clause 106: The method of clause 104, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
composition is administered twice daily.
[00267] Clause 107: The method of clause 104, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
composition comprises 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride.
[00268] Clause 108: The method of clause 104, wherein the pharmaceutically
acceptable
composition does not contain any viscosity-enhancing polymers.
[00269] Clause 109: The method of clause 104, wherein the wherein the
composition comprises
about 1.25% w/v pilocarpine hydrochloride, about 1.0% w/v boric acid, about
0.015% w/v
sodium citrate dihydrate, about 0.08% w/v sodium chloride, and about 0.0075%
w/v
benzalkonium chloride.
[00270] Clause 110: The method of clause 104, wherein the administration of
the
pharmaceutically acceptable composition to the patient results in a lower
incidence of at least
one adverse event compared to the administration of a second composition
comprising
pilocarpine hydrochloride and a viscosity-enhancing polymer, and wherein the
adverse events
51
are selected from the group consisting of ocular blurring, ocular discomfort,
eye pain, brow ache,
blurry vision, light sensitivity, ocular stinging, and ocular itching.
[00271] Clause 111: A composition substantially as described herein.
[00272] Clause 112: A method of treatment substantially as described herein.
52
Date Recue/Date Received 2022-06-09
